+ All Categories
Home > Documents > snag presentation August 2012 ESA

snag presentation August 2012 ESA

Date post: 29-Jan-2018
Category:
Upload: matt-hane
View: 112 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
20
Experimental effects of structural enrichment on avian nest survival in a managed forest landscape Matt Hane 1 , AJ Kroll 1 , Josh Johnson 1 , Mike Rochelle 1 and Ed Arnett 2 1 Weyerhaeuser Timberlands Research 2 Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Transcript
Page 1: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

Experimental effects of structural enrichment on avian nest survival in a

managed forest landscape

Matt Hane1, AJ Kroll1, Josh Johnson1, Mike Rochelle1 and Ed Arnett2

1Weyerhaeuser Timberlands Research2Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Page 2: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

2

CREATION OF SNAG HABITAT FROM EXISTING

LIVE TREES CAN BE DONE

• Background

• Study Design

• Results

• Final Thoughts

Page 3: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

3

BACKGROUND

• Transition from old forests to intensively-managed stands

• Deficiencies in snag numbers and types

• How will adequate types and numbers of snags be maintained in upland areas?

We emphasize that the complete ecological role of snags in the forest is still unknown; therefore, management strategies involving the snag resource must be flexible. --Cline et al. (1980: 785)

Page 4: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

4

BACKGROUND

• Snags were created from 1997-1999

• Inexpensive

• Safe

Page 5: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

5

BACKGROUND

• Harvest unitso Naturally regenerated 2nd growth Douglas fir standso All units were harvested with ground-based

systemso Harvester cut off tree at the highest point it could

reach• Treatments

o Density: 0.5, 1.2, and 2.5 snags/hao Clustered (5-6 trees) vs. uniformly distributed

Page 6: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

6

BACKGROUND

Page 7: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

7

STUDY DESIGN

• 2008 through 2010

• Determine rate of avian nest survival in snags created from merchantable 2nd growth

Page 8: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

8

STUDY DESIGN

• Two stage modeling process

o1st temporal variation

date, date^2, stage, date*stage, constant, global

o2ndexperimental design

year, treatment, density, dispersion, density*dispersion,

• Logistic exposure method

Shaffer, Terry L. (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk, 121, 526-540.

Page 9: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

9

RESULTS – Expected

"Industrial tree farms are sterile and lifeless, this particular method is incredibly ecologically

destructive."

Juliette Beck, coordinator of the Sierra Club's Stop Clearcutting Campaign,

as quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian Online November 9, 2011

Page 10: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

10

RESULTS – Expected

Primary cavity excavatorsChestnut-back chickadee

Downy woodpecker

Hairy woodpecker

Northern flicker

Pileated woodpecker

Red-breasted nuthatch

Red- breasted sapsucker

Walter & Maguire (2005) Snags, cavity nesting birds, and silvicultural treatments in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69,

1578-1591

Secondary cavity excavatorsBrown creeper

European starling

House wren

Violet-green swallow

Page 11: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

11

RESULTS yearly weather variation

Page 12: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

12

RESULTS Nest totals 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010Total

Failed Successful Failed Successful Failed Successful

CBCH 15 54 39 78 51 59 295

HOWR 9 27 10 41 4 17 108

NOFL 9 12 6 15 8 13 63

PUMA 0 6 5 4 2 3 20

HAWO 1 2 2 1 6

WEBL 2 1 1 4

RBSA 1 1 1 3

NSWO 1 1 2

RBNU 2 2

VGSW 2 2

Total 38 105 60 142 68 93 506

Yearly Success Rate 73% 70% 58% 67%

Page 13: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

13

RESULTS Chestnut-backed chickadee

• Our Studyo Apparent nest success 65%o Average daily survival 0.989

95%CL: 0.965-0.996

• Other Studieso Mahon & Martin (2006) 49%o Sperry et. al. (2008) 0.976 & 0.984

95%CL: 0.925-0.996

Page 14: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

14

RESULTS Chestnut-backed chickadee

Low density

Medium density

High density

L

M

H

L

M

H

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2008 2009 2010

Year

Period Survival Rates

Page 15: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

15

RESULTS House wren

• Our Studyo Apparent nest success 78%o Period survival rate 0.72 95%CL: 0.52, 0.85

• Other studieso Period survival rate

• Cavities 0.63 – 0.75• Boxes 0.83

Page 16: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

16

RESULTS Northern flicker

• Our Studyo Apparent nest success 63.5%o Period survival rate 0.60 95%CL: 0.46, 0.71

• Other studieso Apparent nest success

cavities and boxes 41% -100 %o Period survival rate 0.41 – 0.80

Page 17: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

17

RESULTS Purple martin

• Our Studyo Apparent nest success 65%o Period survival rate 0.70 95%CL: 0.48, 0.84

• Other studieso Nest box success 38.5% - 84.3%

Page 18: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

18

• Leaving created snags at a density of 0.5/ha retains some cavity-nesting bird species

o Up to years 12-15…

• Benefits restricted by rotation age

o Snags must be created from trees growing in unit

o Suitability is also dependent on stand conditions (e.g., site index) and landscape context

• Different strategies are required to provide tall snags

• Other taxa besides birds?

FINAL THOUGHTS

Page 19: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

19

FINAL THOUGHTS

• Ed Arnett

• Weyerhaeusero South Valley Operations

for creating units and snags

o Supporting research

• Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

• Field crews 2008-2010

Acknowledgements

Page 20: snag presentation August 2012 ESA

20


Recommended